As nearly 300,000 fans prepare to arrive in Los Angeles for the men’s World Cup soccer championship in mid-June, the international soccer federation is coming under fire for what climate scientists and advocates are calling the most polluting World Cup in history.
This year’s event is being held in 16 stadiums across three giant countries: Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
That’s despite the fact that climate change is worsening, the risk of playing in dangerous heat is rising and the federation, FIFA, has a commitment to reduce its carbon emissions 50% by 2030.
“It’s the sheer amount of travel involved in this tournament,” said Freddie Daley, a researcher at the University of Sussex.
Even more than the geography, this year’s event also includes 60% more games than in the past; FIFA expanded the number of teams from 32 to 48, so some 5 million fans will be traveling from around the world to watch.
“The expanded tournament, twinned with its geographical span, means that it’s by far the most emissions-intensive World Cup that we’ve ever seen,” Daley said.
Jet exhaust is a major contributor to climate change, 3% to 4% of all warming, and air travel is usually the biggest contributor to carbon emissions from major sporting events.
The most dedicated and affluent fans will be flying longer distances than ever before to follow their teams around during the games.
Eight games will be played in SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, beginning with the U.S. men’s national team’s opening match on June 12 and ending with a quarterfinal July 10.
Los Angeles World Airports spokesperson Brian Denney estimates 290,000 visitors will come through LAX, about 40% from outside the United States. Because of the worldwide decline in travel due to fuel prices, however, commercial flights into LAX will net about the same as this time last year.
Daley, a campaigner with the Cool Down Sport for Climate Action Network, calculated the emissions projected for the World Cup with researchers from Scientists for Global Responsibility and the Environmental Defense Fund.
They found that the 2026 games will generate over 9 million tons of carbon dioxide, about double the average for the last four World Cups — 4.7 million tons. A million tons is the equivalent emissions of about 220,000 cars on U.S. roads for a year.
FIFA spokesperson Jhamie Chin said FIFA “acknowledges that air travel is a significant contributor to the overall footprint of any major event, and that managing emissions linked to flights remains one of the most complex sustainability challenges for event organizers.”
He said FIFA “welcomes informed scrutiny” but did not respond to a question about how the group plans to achieve its climate goals if World Cups are getting more carbon intensive.
A sellout crowd estimate of 88,966 is displayed on the scoreboard at the 2022 World Cup final between Argentina and France at the Lusail Stadium in Lusail, Qatar, in December 2022.
(Tom Weller / Picture Alliance via Getty Images)
The games in 2030 will span multiple countries, too, but much smaller ones: Spain, Portugal and Morocco, with opening games in Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina. They’ll emit 6.1 million tons of CO2 — less than this year’s games but still more than World Cups past.
The 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia will take place in a more geographically compact area, but the country plans to build 11 new stadiums, whereas this year’s World Cup will only use existing ones. Stadium construction is another leading cause of mega sporting event emissions, so using only existing venues, as Paris mostly did for the last Olympics, is one main way event hosts can address climate change.
The Saudi plans will drive the 2034 event’s pollution up to 8.6 million tons of CO2, based on conservative estimates.
Private charter jet companies hawk World Cup packages online to fly fans all over the continent, but most won’t be able to pursue this kind of travel.
Jose M. Hernandez, a 67-year-old soccer fan, lives in Culver City and has attended the past eight World Cups, always dressed as the Catholic saint Juan Diego. He normally follows the Mexico national team, but with World Cup prices he’s less particular.
“I follow other teams because I like to meet people from different countries, experience different teams,” he said. “It’s really fun.”
For the World Cups in Russia in 2018 and Brazil in 2014, Hernandez flew to games in different cities to get a flavor for different parts of the host countries.
He said he’ll make the high costs this year work by staying with family and friends for games in Monterrey, Guadalajara and Mexico City, where he’s originally from. He’s also catching the Iran vs. New Zealand game in his hometown, Los Angeles. But many of his friends and fellow fans won’t be so lucky.
“Three different countries is really hard for us, especially people who want to follow their own teams,” Hernandez said. “Fans come from Argentina, Brazil, France and have to travel all across the country, and north and south. I don’t know who is going to do that.”
This isn’t the first time the World Cup has come under fire for its climate claims. In 2022, the group Carbon Market Watch and five other nonprofits challenged claims that the World Cup in Qatar would be “carbon neutral.” A Swiss advertising regulator found FIFA to be in breach of federal law.
Purple lights illuminate the field at Dallas Stadium (temporarily renamed from AT&T Stadium for the 2026 FIFA World Cup) to promote grass growth in Arlington, Texas, on Thursday.
(Ronaldo Schemidt / AFP via Getty Images)
For this year’s games, FIFA is no longer making those claims, but it’s still promising to lower emissions 50% by 2030 in line with the Paris Agreement, and to eventually reach a net zero climate impact by 2040.
Chin, the FIFA spokesperson, pointed to this year’s use of existing stadiums and FIFA’s environmental strategy, which lists reducing food waste, prioritizing clean technologies and promoting public transport, but without specific targets.
Climate advocates say that doesn’t cut it.
“They have shifted their communications, but at the same time, this World Cup is an expanded event,” said Gavin Mair, a spokesperson for Carbon Market Watch. “It’s not a very credible suggestion to say that they’re aligned in any way with the Paris Agreement.”
Climate watchers concede scaling back the games is a difficult discussion.
An aerial view shows Estadio Akron, a venue for the FIFA World Cup 2026, in Guadalajara, Mexico, on Feb. 26.
(Felix Marquez / For The Times)
“An expanded tournament means that more teams that have never been able to take part get to play for the first time,” Daley said. “This is a wonderful thing.”
Still, he added, “if they are serious about driving down emissions, then that has to be part of the conversation.”
His group’s report does recommend reducing the number of teams. He also recommends FIFA drop high-polluting sponsors and prioritize host countries with existing clean transportation to shuttle fans between games.
Soccer fans in L.A. won’t be able to hop on a high-speed rail for games in Houston or Seattle, like they might to get between cities in parts of Europe or Asia, for example.
Metro is touting the expansion of the D line and a special World Cup bus service with about 300 buses and 15 routes to get fans to SoFi Stadium.
Mayor Karen Bass “is encouraging all fans to take public transportation, including through the enhanced Metro service that will be available throughout the World Cup,” said a spokesperson for her office. “This will reduce carbon emissions and encourage an enjoyable experience for all.”
